Okay, there is no other transcript of the call. It's not a rough transcript. You can read on the first page the explanatory note regarding level of content and detail that the live transcription of the call has. It has been explained on non-MSM media as to how international presidential phone calls are handled and memorialized for the official White House record. Also as explained in non-MSM media, there are multiple participants and witnesses to the call, several who are part of the Executive Branch National Security Council and have responsibility for transcribing the conversation of the phone call.

Anyone who can testify to the content of the call are going to refer to the transcript because it is the official record of the call and the purpose of the transcription process.

The White House release of the transcript of the July 25th call IS being transparent.

There is a real transcript but its classified as doubletop secret-I wonder why? Wouldn't ya just love to see the content-why was it declared top secret?

There is no indication that Durham is investigating the Bidens. None. If you've got some new reporting about it, I'd love to see it.

No, if what Trump did was abuse of the power of the Presidency, the Bidens actually being corrupt does not magically make that OK.

You're right - Hunter got the AMTRAK gig for the same reason he got the Burisma gig. His prominent last name. No one has ever argued otherwise that I'm aware. Pretty sure Hunter even copped to it in an interview recently.

Trump wanted aid to Ukraine frozen until it helped on probes of political rivals: New York Times https://reut.rs/2vpamTy

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump told a then-top aide in August he wanted to freeze security aid to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden, the New York Times reported on Sunday.

Trump's statement was described in an unpublished manuscript by former White House national security adviser John Bolton

There is no such thing (classification) as "double top secret". If there was additional language on the transcript considered not releasible to the public, it would be redacted. Stop talking about shit you know nothing about.

Trump wanted aid to Ukraine frozen until it helped on probes of political rivals: New York Times https://reut.rs/2vpamTy

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump told a then-top aide in August he wanted to freeze security aid to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden, the New York Times reported on Sunday.

Trump's statement was described in an unpublished manuscript by former White House national security adviser John Bolton

If true, that's very bad news for Trump's defense team.

Let's see how the GOP's stance on witnesses might change now that this has come to light.

__________________
"The Constitution was never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” Samuel Adams

WASHINGTON (AP) — The stakes over witness testimony at President Donald Trump's impeachment trial are rising now that a draft of a book from former national security adviser John Bolton appears to undercut a key defense argument — that Trump never tied withholding of aid to Ukraine to a demand the country investigate rival Joe Biden..

WASHINGTON (AP) — The stakes over witness testimony at President Donald Trump's impeachment trial are rising now that a draft of a book from former national security adviser John Bolton appears to undercut a key defense argument — that Trump never tied withholding of aid to Ukraine to a demand the country investigate rival Joe Biden..

o wow someone trump fired trying to sell a book says some outrageous thing to drum up sales.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The stakes over witness testimony at President Donald Trump's impeachment trial are rising now that a draft of a book from former national security adviser John Bolton appears to undercut a key defense argument — that Trump never tied withholding of aid to Ukraine to a demand the country investigate rival Joe Biden..

Certainly damning if accurate - but I disagree that a witness testimony should be enough to impeach a president. That really isn't any more than 'he said, she said'. People lie. We can all 'assume' who is lying (either Trump or Bolton), but there needs to be corroborating evidence to confirm that was the reason to hold the aid back for my vote to be yes on impeachment.

I feel the same way in court hearings for anyone else as well. I absolutely disagree that someone should be able to be convicted on witness testimony alone. I don't care if a dozen people say they saw some one rob a bank - unless there is corroborating evidence to agree to the testimony, I don't think they should be able to convict anyone.

He is now a public servant and he has said on countless occasions that he would release them. So much for being the most transparent president in history. It's just more bullshit that you guys keep defending. If this was a democrat I'm sure you would be enraged.

__________________

The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Bimmerpost.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The stakes over witness testimony at President Donald Trump's impeachment trial are rising now that a draft of a book from former national security adviser John Bolton appears to undercut a key defense argument — that Trump never tied withholding of aid to Ukraine to a demand the country investigate rival Joe Biden..

Certainly damning if accurate - but I disagree that a witness testimony should be enough to impeach a president. That really isn't any more than 'he said, she said'. People lie. We can all 'assume' who is lying (either Trump or Bolton), but there needs to be corroborating evidence to confirm that was the reason to hold the aid back for my vote to be yes on impeachment.

I feel the same way in court hearings for anyone else as well. I absolutely disagree that someone should be able to be convicted on witness testimony alone. I don't care if a dozen people say they saw some one rob a bank - unless there is corroborating evidence to agree to the testimony, I don't think they should be able to convict anyone.

Besides witnesses, we ( and the Senate) should demand the release all the documents the house asked for. And then decide.

The other disturbing thing I saw over the weekend is all the super PACs putting pressure on moderate Democrats and Republicans, saying they're gonna put money into the races for their rivals if they don't vote to suppress witnesses .
The super pac money is out of control.
Why is some super PAC based in Washington DC threatening to affect the Senate race in the state of Maine?

Certainly damning if accurate - but I disagree that a witness testimony should be enough to impeach a president. That really isn't any more than 'he said, she said'. People lie. We can all 'assume' who is lying (either Trump or Bolton), but there needs to be corroborating evidence to confirm that was the reason to hold the aid back for my vote to be yes on impeachment.

I feel the same way in court hearings for anyone else as well. I absolutely disagree that someone should be able to be convicted on witness testimony alone. I don't care if a dozen people say they saw some one rob a bank - unless there is corroborating evidence to agree to the testimony, I don't think they should be able to convict anyone.

Welp, that's a conveniently unattainable bar to reach in a huge percentage of crimes. I'm confident the evidence is there, but this defendant is in a unique position of being able to dictate exactly what evidence he wants to provide. It's a sham trial, but not for the reasons you guys are espousing. I'd LOVE to have a trial in which I decide what evidence can be submitted and who can testify AND have the jury stacked with mostly members of my own friends.

__________________

The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Bimmerpost.

o wow someone trump fired trying to sell a book says some outrageous thing to drum up sales.

never seen that before

where has he been the last 6 months?

Bolton has been saying he's willing to testify for months, no?

This appears to be reporting based on the unpublished manuscript that was submitted for review to identify classified (or potentially so) information. It didn't come from Bolton directly, so it would seem his behavior is unchanged.

o wow someone trump fired trying to sell a book says some outrageous thing to drum up sales.

never seen that before

where has he been the last 6 months?

Did you forget that they gagged his twitter for several months. It's also funny that he's one of dozens of people who have left the administration with similar stories. I've said it a hundred times, high turnover in any organization is a sign of a poorly run organization.

__________________

The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Bimmerpost.

This appears to be reporting based on the unpublished manuscript that was submitted for review to identify classified (or potentially so) information. It didn't come from Bolton directly, so it would seem his behavior is unchanged.

People always seem to forget that these books have to pass through many levels of government approval.

__________________

The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Bimmerpost.